serve disabled americans, and serve them well. thank you for introducing us to some of these amazing technologies that have already been created, to assist people with 13 occasions need. i look forward to seeing more of those and learning more about them. in this deal, america has been a leader in producing such innovation. and i look forward to working with the disabled community, with engineers, brilliant engineers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and, of course, my colleagues, to ensure that research and development continues to flourish in this arena as we implement the new act. and i want to thank congress for passing that as well. so thank you, mr. chairman, for the presentation. >> mr. chairman, i too would like to welcome gregory, and i call you gregory because i'm not sure how to pronounce your last name. [laughter] >> and i think also to karen and

joel for always informing and remaining enthusiastic about an area, in particular areas that we should be enthusiastic about. i had the opportunity to join many of my colleagues when the president signed this bill into law. and i thought he had a handle on exactly what it meant. i knew it was incredible. stevie wonder was there. i thought i had a grasp on it and he'll larry gave his presentation about the potential, about how, you know, what that now i can mean for the enhancement of individuals in terms of entertainment and other information, vital strategic information that serves us. i am even more enthused about the potential of what we have in store for our entire nation.

and i'm literally almost moved to tours -- moved to tears. so thank you for your role in that, and the best is yet to come. thank you. >> mr. baker. >> unit, one of the benefits of thing in my seat is that my comics have already articulated very well both their thanks and how important the 21st century communications and video accessibility act is that the new standards that are set so that americans with disabilities can better take advance of broadband, digital and mobile innovations is really meaningful. it's really much-needed step for americans and make sure that all americans can benefit from today's and tomorrow's innovation. so i look forward to seeing progress in our implementation, and i thank you very much for the excellent presentation. >> thank you very much. first of all on behalf of the commission, larry goldberg, thank you for taking her time to come here and prepare, present the presentation.

we appreciate your time and are grateful for it. what an extraordinary team we have working on these issues. joel, you presented the background. greg and karen, you didn't present your own. joel has a background with consumer reports, in helping bring consumer reports online, making it, driving it toward being innovative. and joel and greg and karen and the others who participated in this, we have really a model of what we have been trying to build in terms of sec teams to tackle these issues. and someone like gregory hlibok, i congratulate you on taking on the dispose office. we have someone who both has concrete and non-past expressed in this area, and has also decade of experience at the sec itself and karen, we have one

of, if not the most prominent leaders and thinkers in the state, and joel, we have someone from the outside who was new to the commission and its processes do is bring a new perspective to these. this is all extremely important. i am very proud of this team, and you have a lot of work to do as we have indicated. commissioner copps, thank you for mentioning the disabilities has been it is a priority of all of us on this commission. i appreciate that. i want to acknowledge, my father in inspiring my own recognition of the need and opportunities in this area. i want to acknowledge the work of congress in making these

ideas law, putting them into a landmark law, the first in many years. it was bipartisan effort that included the following members of the house and senate. there were others, but congressman markey and senator pryor, chairman waxman, senator rockefeller, representative barton and hutchinson, chairman boucher and kerry, representative, senator ensign. it was an important effort that sets us, for us now, a bar at the commission that we are taking very serious and. the law means nothing unless we implement it. we have been working on a, karen, as you indicated, first in connection with the national broadband plan. we made access by people with disabilities a priority. and, in fact, discussed, supported and endorsed the provisions that became law in the broadband plan. we are moving on implementation. and i think, let me just .1

reason why this is so important. one of the challenges in this phase historically has been that the idea of making technologies accessible to people with disabilities has often, well after the development, design, go to market stage of a product. and when that happens it's your typical, very difficult for everyone involved. we have all participate in meetings where people are looking at each other and say it would be good if this technology had this feature that would make it accessible to millions of people who are disabled. but retrofitting will be expensive and will take a lot of time. and so what's so important about the energy and early focus of this team is that it increases the chances that our rules are work with industry can happen at a stage where the cost of making

technologies accessible as is required is vastly reduced. and so that we can all together accomplish more faster. and so that's why i am so pleased with the presentation today. i'm pleased that since the adoption of the law, we've issued several notices. and i know you have conducted many meetings and a lot of outreach to move the ball, we will be making an announcement very soon with respect to advisory committees that the law requires. one is an advisory committee on emergency access, the other on video programming. we have a lot of work to do to meet the deadline. and this will remain an ongoing priority, one, because of its inherent in -- important dr. cantu, the body we can add in moving quickly engaging with innovators, manufacturers, and others early in the roll out of new technologies. this does not require a vote.

i will simply thank everyone again very much on behalf of all of us on the commission. with that, you are free to go. i think we're going to conclude the meeting. i have one announcement. does anyone -- please, go ahead. [inaudible] >> for the last six days, and that's because our friend and his wife, hannah, became parents on the day before thanksgiving. and we join in their joy in welcoming their child was born last wednesday. so it was a wonderful thanksgiving there. and josh reports that ezra is sleeping well and even will come and that josh and hannah spent most of their time just kind of deliriously staring at this wonderful little boy that they have created. so we are very happy for him.

and hannah. and ezra. >> i don't have an announcement, but thank you for -- i had the opportunity to attend a global symposium for regulation synagogue not long ago. the only regret i have is that that prevented me from attending neighborhood. and so, i say that but i'm not sure my colleagues missed me because my colleague, commissioner copps, did such a wonderful job of chairing the joint boards and conferences. i want to publicly thank you for that. i heard you ended the meeting on time. it will be difficult for me to return to my post because they will have that expectation, and they won't get it. seriously, i want to thank you for stepping in and doing such a marvelous job for that. thank you. i appreciate it.

thank you spent thinking, commissioner clyburn. >> i have -- first of all, i did get to go. i was very pleased to do that. it felt like home since with mr. clyburn, you here, sharon gillett as well. i do want to thank commissioner copps, commissioner clyburn, both of you for playing the role that you do on the joint board. commissioner baker. commissioner mcdowell. your turn will come. but it's a very important part of what we do. federal state relations are very important that it really does take a lot of work, and i thank and acknowledge the three of you for doing that and it was good for me to see it in person. let me take this moment to say goodbye to a very valuable member of our team who is leading the commission.

phoebe. if phoebe is here i would not embarrass her in front of everyone. you know, we took a break last week to say thanks for the many things will have to be grateful for. one of the things that a person, and i know we're all very grateful for, is to of had phoebe as a member of our fcc team. since last summer, phoebe has served as my senior advisor for broadband that she is one of the key architects of the national broadband plan. a model for strategic planning for our nation and the world. when we release the national broadband plan in march, we said that's when the real work begins, and phoebe has been the main person leading the plan's implementation since its release, establishing an ambitious action agenda,

managing its execution. db has done an outstanding job, working not only with each of our bureaus and offices, drives initiatives like modernizing our modern program, but also partners across government to ensure that the full and the play of recommendations of the plan get the attention and focus they deserve. we could not have made progress we have made on broadband without phoebe. it's critical to have a key member of the broadband team stay on past february, drive implementation of the plan, working as i said with the bureaus and offices, with my office and with each of our offices on the eighth floor. db brought to the job a remarkable combination of skills broad strategic thinking, effective management. phoebe, i know you will thrive in a new position at the advisory board where you will continue to work on education and other issues. we have all benefited greatly

from your extraordinary talent and abilities. we learn from your integrity. your teambuilding. we will miss you. on behalf of all of us at the commission, i thank you for your service, and we wish you well. [applause] >> and with that, if there is no other comments, i big on behalf of all of my commissioners in thanking phoebe, and with that, madam secretary, would you please announce the date of the next fcc meeting? >> the next agenda meeting will be tuesday, december 21, 2010. >> thank you. we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> as you know, it talks about a voluntary allocation of 120 megahertz. there's been a lot of skepticism among some broadcasters about whether this will work in practice, whether the technology will allow us. can you address their continued skepticism over this plan? >> well, i think it's an option, voluntary incentive options are very important for the reasons i talked about in a meeting today. we are facing a real spectrum crunch. you've heard in the past talk about the numbers, the gap between the supply of spectrum we have coming online, about two and half times what we have now against what we project over the next five year, 35 x. and i feel very strongly that

the incentive options ideas is a very important policy innovation innovation. that is essential to bring market forces to the use of broadcast spectrum, to free up the spectrum, gives broadcasters option now become as you said. and i'm very pleased that we started the proceeding today to lay the groundwork for incentive options, which i hope congress will address in the near future. >> the large markets where you will need spectrum for wireless profit? >> well, i believe we would. i think that's the duty of bringing market forces into the use of the spectrum. will that market forces help decide how to make sure that spectrum is used in the most efficient way in the future? how it is put to its highest and

best use for our country, especially in an era of mobile broadband data vital to our global competitiveness. >> hi, chairman. regarding the same item, the steps the fcc proposed to take would presumably open the door to leasing. assuming there is a delay on the hill, would a leasing framework be amenable at all as a plan b? >> to point. one is a general spectrum flexibility and smart policy. but there is something that is important in thinking about the broadcast spectrum in the historical way in which it was allocated as against the direction that spectrum allocations have gone, and what's important to unlock the valley of spectrum for the future. so broadcast spectrum originally was allocated in six megahertz

chunks, like a checkerboard across the country with the gaps between them. what we hope to do is part of an incentive the auction process is recover up to 120 megahertz spectrum, and then work to reconfigure the broadcast spectrum so that we can free up significant contiguous blocks of spectrum which is what is most needed by mobile broadband, biker and the next generation, 4g technologies. so, leasing -- in general, it would consider all options to improve spectrum flexibility. but it doesn't come close to providing the same benefits to the public as the incentive auction model and making sure that we have continuous blocks with respective mobile

broadband. that is what other countries are and focus on. we have to find ways to free up the continuous blocks of in the united states. >> kadi boffin, immediate week. this is a sample question. how long do you expect the comment period to be, and second, how would that affect the timing? obviously this is very dependent on congress doing something. so when do you expect congress to take something like this up? how do you like your chances that they will? >> so, the comment period itself i will get back to. i don't remember the commentary that bill or someone else can answer that question. what was driving our action today, what is driving our action today was the time pressure that we feel to get out in front of the spectrum crunch. and so the importance of laying

the groundwork at the commission to be able to move quickly, should congress authorize instead of auctions. we also believe the record that we will collect as part of this will be helpful as a resource to congress as they consider the possibility. i think this is something that has been bipartisan, it should be bipartisan. you see a broad consensus on the commission itself. so i'm looking for to be a resource to congress on this, and i will continue to emphasize how important this is for the country. one other point that i would make is, like other infrastructure issues if you wait until there's a crisis, a it's a series problem because it takes a substantial amount of time to go through the process

of running an auction, reallocating spectrum, it's a debate that's why we started today. it's also why we took up the other items today, they are complementary and really an ongoing part of our spectrum agenda. we do need to recover a substantial amount of spectrum for flexible use in mobile broadband. we also need to foster smart, incentivize, facilitate drive for next generation of spectrum policies and technologies that will lead to even greater spectrum efficiency and take advantage of cutting-edge technologies that allow for dynamic uses of spectrum. >> when you say this would be a resource for congress, do you mean to say that this sort of makes it easier for them to say okay, let's go ahead and do this? i mean, you all have sort of done the work in lay the groundwork. i mean, do you think --

>> that's not what i meant. the information we gather and information, information we are gathering our work on this, we look forward to being a resource to congress on this issue. and so the ongoing proactive work that we are doing is designed both to make sure that we can do it quickly, if they went legislative is adopted and also to make sure we are in a position to be effective resource to congress specs i've congress doesn't do anything, then what? [inaudible] >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> hi, chairman. can you tell us about your commitment to net neutrality and whether you are committed to doing it at the next meeting? and doing it without request of

broadband? >> you know, we just came out of the meeting focused on are important spectrum agenda, focused on implementing the new law with respect to people with disabilities. i know there is interest in the open internet topic, but i'm not going to address it here. when we have something announce we will. >> thank you. >> i just wondered if you're planning on finishing comcast-nbc review this year? and if that's even possible if you take a net neutrality this summer? >> you know, we haven't talked, and i don't have a comment on the timetable forward in the transaction. you know, it's an important obligation to review it thoroughly, and we are in the process of that. >> did you want more information about the level threes complaint against comcast? >> you know, that is new information as you know, it would be a mature to comment on it before with the facts are. we are looking into it spent the

united states the united states senate will gavel and in just a few minutes. and will debate collective bargaining rights for state employed public safety officers. yesterday on the senate floor republican john mccain spoke about his democratic colleague, senator russ feingold, who is retiring after losing his remarks. say a >> i want to say a few words about a friend and colleaguem i whom i w will miss very much whn he leaves the senate after we adjourned.se senator russna feingold.uss i can't thank him for his service outstanding work of his capable staff, mary ervine, his chief of staff, his policy director, his chief counsel, and paul wineberger, legislative director, a loyal and outstanding team. without intending it as a commentary on his successor, i

have to confess, i think the senate will be a much poorer place without russ feingold in it. i know that in my next term, i will experience fewer occasions of inspiration because of the departure of russ feingold, a man whose courage and dedication to the principles that guided his senate service often inspired me. i will also miss the daily experience of russ feingold's friendship and the qualities that distinguish his friendship, his thoughtfulness, kindness, humor and loyalty. i have treasured that friendship all the years we have served together, and while friendship doesn't end with a senate career, i will sorely miss his presence here. i will miss seeing him every day. i will miss traveling with him. i will miss the daily reminder of what a blessing it is to have

a true friend in washington. our first encounter with one another was in a senate debate in which we argued about an aircraft carrier, somewhat heatedly, if memory serves. russ thought the united states navy had one too many. i thought we didn't have enough. it was, i'm sorry to admit, not a very considerate welcome on my part to a new colleague whom i would soon have many reasons to admire, but to russ' credit, he didn't let my discourtesy stand in the way of working together on issues where we were in agreement. to my good fortune, he didn't let it stand in the way of our friendship either. we are of different parties, and our political views are often opposed. we have had many debates on many issues, but where we agreed on wasteful spending, ethics reform, campaign finance reform and other issues, it was a

privilege to fight alongside and not against russ feingold. we don't often hear any more about members of congress who distinguish themselves by having the courage of their convictions, who risk their personal interests for what they believe is in the public interest. i have seen many examples of it here, but the cynicism of our times among the political class and the media and the voters tend to miss the examples of political courage or dismiss them as probable frauds or at best exceptions that prove the rule. in his time in the senate, russ feingold every day and in every way had the courage of his convictions, and although i am quite a few years older than russ and have served in this body longer than he has, i confess i have always felt he was my superior in that cardinal

virtue. we were both up for re-election in 1998. i had an easy race. russ had a difficult one. as many of our colleagues will remember, russ and i opposed soft money, the unlimited corporate and labor donations to political parties that we believed were compromising the integrity of congress, and we were a nuisance on the subject. russ' opponent in 1998 was outspending him on television, and the race became tighter. it reached a point where most observers, democrats and republicans, expected him to lose. the democratic party pleaded with russ to let it spend soft money on his behalf. russ refused. he risked his seat, the job he loved because his convictions were more important to him than any personal success. i think he is one of the most admirable people i've ever met

in my life. we've had a lot of experiences together. we fought together for many things, important things, and we fought many times on opposite sides. we have been honored together and scorned together. we have traveled abroad together. we couldn't be further apart in our views on the wars in iraq and afghanistan, but we traveled there together as well to gain knowledge that would inform our views and challenge them. we have listened to each other, debated each other, defended each other, joked and commiserated together, and in my every experience with russ feingold, in agreement and disagreement, in pleasant times and difficult ones, in heated arguments and in a relaxed conversation of friends, he was an exemplary public servant, a gentleman, good company, an

irreplaceable friend, a kind man, a man to be admired. i can't do justice in these remarks to all of russ' many qualities or express completely how much i think this institution benefited from his service here and how much i benefited from knowing. i lack the eloquence. i don't think he is replaceable. we would all do well to keep his example in our minds as we serve our constituents and country and convictions. we couldn't have a better role model. i have every expectation we will remain good friends long after we have both ended our senate careers, but i will miss him here every day and i will try harder to become half the public servant that he is because his

friendship is an honor and friendship is an honor and >> senator john mccain there on the floor of the senate yesterday. the senate about the gavel into start their day with the general speeches. that's the order of the day today. no legislative business. they will be a break between 12:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to allow democrats to attend the party caucus me. we will take you now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the

senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain : let us pray. eternal, unchanging god, you are our rock, our fortress, and our stronghold. empower our lawmakers to change in ways that will render them more faithful to your will and more responsive to your call. may they develop such moral and ethical fitness that they will clearly comprehend your desires and be eager to do your will.

as they grow in grace and in knowledge of you, deliver them from the bonds of anxiety, as you turn their spirits toward the light of your presence. may the knowledge of your blessings to our nation bring us all to a deeper commitment to you. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., december 1, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business. senators will be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time. republicans will control the first 30 minutes. the majority will control the final 30 minutes. we're going to recess from 12:30 until 3:30 today to allow for a caucus the democrats are having. mr. president, there are two bills at the desk due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 3991, a bill to provide collective bargaining

rights for public safety officers employed by states or their political subdivisions. s. 3992, a bill to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term united states residents and who entered the united states as children, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to these two bills. the presiding officer: objections having been heard. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the bills will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. mr. reid: mr. president, last night the process began to what we call rule 14, two important bills. they were just announced by the clerk, the dream act and the firefighters collective bargaining. it had been might be intent to file cloture on both of these bills last evening, however supporters of the original bills

requested that some modification be made. these changes are reflected in the bills. i intend to move forward on both of these pieces of legislation. in addition, i intend to file cloture this week on the 9/11 health bill. i'll file cloture on all three of these at the same time. mr. president, as you know, the current continuing resolution expires this friday. we're waiting house action on a short-term c.r. which we'll receive later this week. i hope members on both sides will allow us to act quickly on this short-term c.r. when we receive it so we can move forward to complete our work that's absolutely necessary by the end of this year. as we work to clear the short-term continuing resolution, house and senate appropriations committees are working on legislation to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. earlier this morning i received a letter from my republican

colleagues indicating they will filibuster any legislative matter brought to the floor prior to the completion of the spending and tax bills. no one is more anxious to put these bills behind us than i. however passing either will require republican votes. i wish i could report we're close to wrapping up action on these bills but we're not. the first meeting that was requested by the president is taking place this morning. senator mcconnell chose senator kyl to represent the republicans in the senate. i chose the chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus, to represent democrats in the senate. so they're moving forward on that to see if there is something that can be worked out. my republican colleagues knew this as they drafted this letter. therefore, they also know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. with this letter, they have

simply put in writing the political strategy that the republicans pursued this entire congress, namely, obstruct, delay; obstruct, delay action on critical matters and then blame the democrats for not addressing the needs of the american people. very cynical, but very obvious, very transparent. so i, mr. president, -- we must move forward on matters of importance. we have numerous judges that need to be taken care of, and i'm trying to work something out with the republican leader on those. so i hope that everyone understands there are issues that we need to deal with. there are meetings going on as we speak to try to help us move forward on the issues that will allow us to complete action here at the earliest possible date. mr. president, would you announce morning business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the

leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business with the senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the republicans controlling the first 30 minutes and the democrats controlling the next 30 minutes. mr. reid: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum and ask the time be charged equally on both the minority and the democrats. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll, without objection. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, for the last two years democratic leaders in washington have spent virtually all of their time ticking off items on

the liberal wish list while they've had the chance. government-run health care, a national energy tax, financial regulations, bigger government, bigger deficits, union bailouts, government takeovers, and so here we are, just a few weeks left in the session, and they're still at it. last month the american people issued their verdict on the democratic priorities. democrats have responded by doubling down. for two years they legislated as if they weren't in the middle of a national jobs crisis and now they're legislating as if they don't realize that the government is about to run out of money and every taxpayer in america is about to get slammed with a giant tax hike. with just a few weeks to go before the end of the session, democrats continue to place their priorities over the prieties of -- priorities of the american peep the. this is what they have chosen to do rather than a -- republicans have pleaded with democrats to put aside their wish list to

focus on the things americans want us to focus on. they've ignored us. voters repudiated their agenda at the polls. they've ignored them. time is running out and they're ignoring that. the election was a month ago. it's time to get serious. it's time to focus on priorities. now, a while ago i delivered a letter to senator reid signed by all 42 senate republicans. it says that every republican will vote against proceeding to any legislative matter until we've funded the government and protected every taxpayer from a tax hike. basically what it means is first things first. with time running out in this session, we need to focus on these critical priorities. as the letter states, our constituents have repeatedly asked us to focus on creating an environment for private-sector job growth. it is time our constituents' priorities become the senate's

priorities. at the moment every taxpayer in the country stands to get a massive tax increase and a cut in pay on december 31. we need to show the american people that we care more about them and their ability to pay their bills than we do about the special interest groups' legislative christmas list. republicans are united in our opposition to proceed to any of these things until democrats make the priorities of the american people their own. so, mr. president, with that i'd like to ask unanimous consent that the letter to senator reid that i just referenced appear in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. mr. begich: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. begich: i ask that the quorum call be sraeu kaeubgt kateed. -- be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. begich: i wasn't prepared to come down here but as we watch we watch the opening comments and reflect on what was done yesterday and what was done on the floor and i've kind of had this new attitude that as i see people put information put on the floor that has to have a balance to it, i'm going to come out and give that balance when i can. the biggest one is on the economy. i sat here yesterday and heard some folks on the other side complain it took us a week to deal with the food safety law, and they wondered why. why is because the other side

continues to require filibusters for 30 hours. i know you've been working aggressively on this, mr. president, to try to figure out way to get things on this floor quick sore we can have the debate. -- quicker on this floor so we can have a debate. but it shoebgs me that they complained it was a week when in fact their delay caused the week delay. but the bigger issue is on the economy. you and i came here two years ago. we came and were sworn in this chamber, sworn in in january of 2009. this economy was collapsing. it was a disaster. it doesn't matter if you were from alaska or new mexico, wherever you went, you heard the stories, the problem with the economy and where we were headed. and it was incumbent upon us to do as many things possible to assist the economy to grow, to figure out the pathway. not all the ideas that we laid

on the table and passed were perfect, but they were multiple and multifaceted to figure out what we were doing versus the other side who just kept saying no, no, no. they weren't interested in doing anything to move this economy forward. we were in a crisis moment. and when you think about the issues, you look back and always at the time you're making decisions and you're hoping for the best and you're trying everything possible. and it -- to remind ourselves where we were. it didn't matter if you were from alaska or new mexico, the economic condition of this country and this world were at risk. so we made some moves, some moves that were very controversial and today many of us don't like to talk about because the pollsters will tell you bad news, don't talk about it, the public hates it. it may be the tarp or the auto bailout or the stimulus. figure out the list. but what i look at -- and every

day i read the business week. i read "wall street journal." i look at cnbc, i look at all the business publications online and in print. and what i like to see is not what politicians are saying hout economy is going -- how the economy is going but what other people are saying, people who work every single day try to build this economy. i can speak on this. no respect, i know you're an attorney, mr. president. no respect to the attorneys who are here. we've got lots of them in the u.s. senate. i'm from the private sector. my first business license was at the age of 14. my wife owns four retail stores. we are business people. we understand what it takes to go to the bank and try to scratch a loan from them to build a business, expand a business. and we understand when a banker says no that we have to go raise capital from other folks to try to make our dreams come true. there are a lot of people who come on this floor on the other side that talk a lot about business; never been in it, never had to make a payroll.

they have worked their way through another means of income. and so it's frustrating to me when i hear people come out on this floor and talk about the business world and have never been in it. let me just give you some data points, and i'll praobl do this -- probably do this more often than i should over the next several months because the american people have heard the story from the other side over and over and over again. i was no big fan of the auto bailout. a lot of us weren't. but, you know, ten days ago a little blip in the news, g.m. had the largest initial public offering in the stock market history. first they had estimated about $17 million would be subscribed to it. then it was $20 billion. the latest news is $23 billion. the american people put their money on the table and bet on g.m. $23 billion.

unbelievable. actually what really shocked me was when i grabbed -- i get it every day, i read it and i think it's incredible news stories. it's not your liberal newspaper. it's the "wall street journal." it has very conservative views on a lot of things, but their headline, "g.m. stock sale in hot gear. on pace to score one of the largest u.s. i.p.o.'s ever." it clearly shows, even though it was controversial and still is controversial -- no one wants to talk about it -- that investment to save an american company in order for it to sustain american jobs in this country is succeeding. it's not because i'm saying it. it's not because maybe you might say it, mr. president, or the other side now who wants to take some credit, which is amazing -- i love some of the quotes i

read. when this first was kicked around, they called it socialism, the world was collapsing, the sky is falling. now today you read some of the folks on the other side and they say, you know, with our help, we made it a better deal. they didn't vote for anything to make it a better deal. that's just a fact. the fact is we took the risk to make an american company survive. that's what we did on this side of the aisle. today that company is more profitable than ever before. when you look at the data the private sector is successful, the american people are investing in that company. that's the true test of what the work we did even though it was controversial what the outcome was. as i sit here in the last couple of days, i will read you a couple of more data points. it's not me saying them or writing these issues. it's the private sector who is identifying where we're going in this economy. today and later this week we'll get a report on friday.

the private sector, and i heard today in some of the comments we should let the private sector do as much as possible. i 100% agree. 100% agree. i come from the private sector. many have talked about it but never been there. the private sector added 93,000 jobs last month. when you look at another one -- the number i like to look at is consumer confidence. when consumers are more confident about the economy, they will spend more money -- they'll spend more money, drive our economy and invest in our country. consumer and manufacturing reports beat forecast. that came out yesterday. again, another indicator that the economy is moving in the right direction. still rough and fragile, but moving into the -- in the right direction because of policies, controversial, yes, but we took the risk and bet on the american people. that's what the democrats did.

we said we believe in american ingenuity, innovation and the capacity to pull us out of this recession. but we're going to help them with some tools. and they're doing it. they're making it happen. another one, and i can tell you from being in the rail, my wife in the rail business -- retail business. black friday, the day after thanksgiving. this is what forecasters look at. what's it going to be like. is it going to be successful? if you look at all the reports compared to a year ago, retailers have strong momentum coming out of black friday. everyone did very well. that's another good indication. as a matter of fact, one encouraging sign this is actually out of another business document, cnbc did this. another encouraging sign comes from mpd group. the research firm suggests that

shoppers are starting to buy items for themselves. in addition to gifts for others, 35% of shoppers said while shopping on black friday, they also made purchases for themselves. if shoppers are starting to splurge on themselves, it would be an important development for retailers that could push the holiday season's past sales forecast. you know, i'm not making this stuff up. this is what's happening because, again, this side of the aisle said we're going to bet on the american people. we're going to bet that the work we did in 2009 -- early 2009, trying everything possible to jump-start this economy is going to have a payoff down the road. because we're going to focus on the private sector helping them get the tools they need just as we did just before the august break i in in passing the --

again, we received two votes on the other side for that. so be it. we go the road alone. and the net result is the last two years, and, mr. president, we have only been here two years, you've been on pt other side for a decade or so, but here we came to work, we came here to get work done. and maybe they are controversial at times. leadership is not the easy road. it's not finding something easy and we're going to do that because everyone loves it. sometimes the tough decisions are the ones that the public has the hardest time with in the worst situations, the recession. we made some decisions. again, not perfect. but the results are slowly and surely coming true that the economy is moving in the right direction. so every time i hear from the other side, you know, the private sector needs to do more.

absolutely. as a matter of fact, the private sector, the largest companies have more cash in their bank accounts today than in decades because they have done well over the last few years in preparing for the new growth in this economy that's occuring right now. so, mr. president, again, didn't plan to come down here. i was getting prepared for a commerce committee hearing. i know you and i are both on that committee and we have lots of work to do there. but anyone that suggests that we're not focused on this economy or focused on job creation or figuring out how to make sure that the middle-class taxpayers in this country get a fair shake and make sure they have a tax break coming forward and continuing forward, those that say that we're not focused on that are mistaken. one thing i learned and i learn when i was a mayor, you can do more than one thing at one time. you know, we're sitting down here -- the reason i can come down here and talk is because no

one was talking. it's a dead zone. that's what happens. when they come down here and say, i wish we'd be working on this and that, then quit filibustering, quit doing the 30-hour delays. get on with the work. we're doing it. we're multitasking, because that's what the american people ask us t to do, work on the economy, taxes, the budget. it's not one thing at a time we're 100 people. we can do this. anyone who thinks that we're not focused on the economy. someone who lives in the private sector, who comes from the private sector, deals with business people every single day, i understand exactly what they're feeling. those who have never experienced that, should experience it once and understand that every day is an opportunity. i'm going to continue to come down here and talk about the positive news and the opportunities occuring from the work we've done in the last two years. the other side may complain, may argue over was it right or was

it wrong. the proof will be in the puddi pudding, not jaw boning about it, but people in the private sector telling us about it and we've had good news in the last several months. the last thing i'll leave on is another bit of good news. it was, again, from the small business. they do an indicator and they try to determine the confidence level of a small business person. why is that important? a small business community is the largest driver of new employment now, in the future and in the past. so you want to make sure their confidence level is high. well, the last five months it has increased every single month. i believe it's because actions we have done here to give them faith that we believe in them, we believe in the american people. we believe that the ability to move this economy is ahead of us, and we are doing it today. so, again, mr. president, i'll continue to come down with data points, articles, not out of

liberal magazines or liberal publications. i know i heard earlier today some liberal agenda. i don't know what's that about. i know what the american agenda is. that's what i'm about. i know what the alaska agenda is. if we get off the partisan activities and focus on what's right, we'd get a lot done around this place. but i will continue t to come dn here and talk about the positive aspects. be positive of what we can do. it's amazing what this economy and this country can do together. again, mr. president, i appreciate the moments here of rant that i was able to do. i just warned my staff as we left, i said turn on the tv. i didn't tell them why i was coming down here. i'm sure they will tell me when i get back, what was i doing? on a regular basis i will come down here and talk about the positive news aspects of this economy and will no longer

listen to the other side, nay saying, negative attitudes that we have an economy that is moving, fragile, but moving in the right direction. we on this side bet on the american people and i believe we bet right. let me end there and say, mr. president, thank you very much. i yield the floor and note the be a dense of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:quorum

call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are a few hours into the month of

december. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. hatch: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. hatch: mr. president, we are a few hours into the month of december, 2010. normally, the month of december means holiday time for most american families. for jewish americans, hanukkah starts at sundown. as anyone who visits a department store knows, santa claus is already as much a fixture on the shelves as the shelves and the lights. the congressional christmas tree will be lit in a few days. this should be a happy time for families, but the festive mood is dampened by the high unemployment and the slow economic growth rate in this country. too many businesses are struggling, too many investors are holding back their capital, too many workers are idle, and here in washington, we hear too much talk and take too little action to effectively address these problems. for almost four years, our

friends on the other side have failed to take action on the tax increase that will soon hit virtually every income tax-paying american. there is a bipartisan resolution staring us all in the face. it is the only bipartisan compromise. i'm talking about the seamness extension of current bipartisan tax policy that was enacted in 2001 and 2003. how is it the only bipartisan compromise on the table? look no further than the statements of members themselves. i'm aware of no republican in the house or senate favoring less than full prevention of the widespread tax hike set to kick in in 31 short days. democrats are split. that's why we have seen no action for almost four years. it seems they may be split three ways. i've heard rumors that many democrats in both bodies would

privately prefer current law. that is, they would prefer to leave the law as it is and let the tax hikes kick in. but that is a privately held sentiment. the politics of advocating a tax increase on virtually every american income taxpayer aren't, shall we say, compelling. that is the first group. the second group is aligned with president obama's budget. that position would guarantee a marginal tax hike on all small business owners with incomes above $200,000 if single or $250,000 if married. that's the second group. a significant number of democrat -- democratic house and senate members have signaled that a short-term, seamless extension of all current tax law relief is their preferred course. now, that's the third group. there might be a fourth group who think that we ought to just

raise that $200,000 to $500,000 and that $250,000 to $1 million, but that still hits small business right in the face at a time when we need to create jobs. and we republicans understand that. i can't understand why my democrat friends don't seem to understand it. there are some who do. i think the current presiding officer understands that. so i guess i could say there are four groups in that sense. republicans generally support a permanent tax freeze. now, that position is embodied in leader mcconnell's bill. i'm pleased to be a cosponsor of that bill, but we republicans know that as good as that policy is, we will not likely find at least 18 democrats to join us. we likely won't get 60 votes for now. -- or for it now. and i might add that we would make it permanent if we could,

but it's very difficult to get 60 votes on that. now, the wisdom of the bipartisan compromise is that it keeps intact the political glue that made the bipartisan tax relief possible in the first place. republicans supported the original plan because of the mix of two tax relief policies. the first policy was tax relief for america's families. the second policy was tax relief designed to spur economic growth. the fact that we are divided now is due to the democratic leadership's insistence that the growth incentives part of the compromise be broken off. they want to break it off using language like -- quote -- "decoupling" and discard the pro growth policy. that is the essence of the difference. democrats are split, but the democratic leadership is united on the point of breaking off the pro growth piece of the policy. in an effort to avoid the

obvious compromise, two members of the senate democratic leadership have put forward a new proposal. the proposal would apply the pending rate hikes to single taxpayers at $500,000 of income and married couples at $1 million of income that i've explained earlier. this latest partisan proposal is said to be necessary for fiscal reasons. finance committee republican staff using data from the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation conducted a preliminary analysis of this particular proposal. they concluded that less than half the revenue sought by the democratic leadership would be raised by this proposal. that tells me the reason behind this new proposal is ideological. now, some may ask why don't republicans give in and agree to hike taxes on those earning over $500,000 and $1 million? certainly, it puts a fine point on the usual political game of class warfare.

to those of us on this side of the aisle, the sting of the proposal's political shot is far outweighed by its economic harm. why is it so important? let me turn to two broad principles on which democrats and republicans generally agree. the first principle is that a healthy, growing economy is a very good antidote to our fiscal ailments. the second principle is that small business will be the source of the new jobs. i don't think you will find much daylight between republicans and democrats on those principles. now, let's consider the merits of this so-called -- quote -- "millionaire" tax in light of these bipartisan principles. fiscal history shows without question that revenues will grow and temporary social safety net entitlement spending will drop if the economy grows. i have a chart that shows this.

just see this chart one. new follow this chart, you will see revenue is very sensitive to the changes in growth. revenues happen to be in the red. g.d.p. happens to be in the green. revenue goes up. growth goes down, as you can see. it is well established that capital is the lifeblood of business. according to answers.com, and i quote -- quote -- "capital is the life by which the body of business operates. a business without finance is like a body in coma. no matter how great the environment is, the entity is considered dead. it is the blood that keeps men alive. drain the blood and watch life end for even the strongest and most privileged human that exists." now, no one disputes the notion that taxpayers with incomes

above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for married couples are a small fraction, small fraction of the tax-paying population, but they account for an awful lot of capital gain income. a proposal to raise the marginal rate on capital gain income by 33% on this group may seem like it would have minimal impact on the pull of capital income. internal revenue service data indicate the contrary is true. the latest data from the i.r.s. statistics of income division are revealing, and i'm quoting the i.r.s. now." according to the statistics of income division, taxpayers at $1 million and over accounted for 56.5% of the net long-term capital gain income for 2008. now, this figure reached close to 70% the year before. keep in mind that that statistic

understates the impact. the reason is that the capital gain income for single taxpayers with income between $500,000 and $1 million isn't counted. the proposed so-called millionaires' tax would pile up rates on this large pool of capital income. now, see this second chart here. the chart shows the current tax rate for this group of taxpayers rising to 24% in a little over two years. that means an almost 60% higher tax hike on earnings from capital from its current law. its capital is the lifeblood of business. does it make sense to make the investment of it dramatically less attractive? considering the current slow growth rate, jobless recovery.

should we put in place a policy that drives down the after-tax rate of return on capital? i've talked only about the hike on capital income. since flow-through small business income would be adversely affected by the tax hikes on ordinary income. actually, you can see i'm concerned about it. look at what that means. it's true that these small business owners would be earnin over $500,000 if single and over $1 million if married. but they represent a significant portion of the ownership of small businesses that will create new jobs. according to the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation, the president's tax hikes would hit half of flow-through small business income. half of flow-through small business income. think about that.

now, that's the joint committee on taxation. i don't have the same calculations for this revised proposal, but do we have the margin for error, mr. president? in this rough patch of our economic history, shouldn't the policy bias be toward business expansion? why should we send the opposite signal? in this economic climate, what justifies a higher marginal rate of 17% on the most successful of our small businesses? why hit the small businesses most likely to expand and hire people and give them jobs? mr. president, the way is clear. my friends in the democratic leadership -- and they're my friends. i dare say that virtually everybody in this body is a friend of mine. they're good people here. but why aren't we working in a bipartisan way to solve these

problems? the way is clear. to my friends on the democratic leadership, i say throw down the partisan weapons. don't sharpen them with more partisan, edgy proposals like the so-called -- quote -- "millionaires' tax." on our side, we like to keep the low tax rates in effect. we would like them to be permanent. we, however, recognize that the legislative calendar of this session is about to end. we are ready to take a short-term time-out with a seamless short-term extension of our current tax relief. and i ask our friends on the other side to do the same. now, it's no secret that 42 -- all 42 republicans have said we should go to work on these problems right now and quit playing games around here. and we're unwilling to let anything else go forward until we solve these problems.

these problems are the problems of extending the current tax relief for everybody. we would like it to be permanent. most of the democrats would not like it to be permanent. there has to be a way of bringing us together. we are not going to agree, it seems to me, we're not going to agree to -- to go to what our friends on the other side want to do and increase taxes at this time in the economic history of this country. all 42 republicans have signed a letter making it very clear that you will not get cloture on anything until we resolve these problems. and then let's go to work after that, if the leadership does want to keep playing around o on -- in december in these -- in this holiday season, let's at least go to work on the other problems.

and i can think of a lot of other problems. for instance, the so-called s.g.r. doc fix. do you realize the democrats have taken $500 billion out of medicare? do you know if they took $282 billion of that, that solves the doc fix? we don't have to worry about it every year like we do right now. that money's there. what about the death tax? if we don't solve the death tax, it just dramatically goes up. who does it hurt? small business people, farmers, and others who don't have all the lawyers in the world to help them to evade those taxes. what about the a.m.t., the alternative minimum tax? that was a tax that was supposed to affect the 155 multimillionaires who didn't pay taxes that year. today it will affect 23 million to 26 million people, many million in the middle cla

class. democrats always talk like they want to get rid of it but i think they really love it because it means more taxes for them to spend, more revenues for them to spend. why don't we get rid of it? even if we don't have an offset, i'd prefer to get rid of it because it goes up every year, we have to patch it every year, it costs us billions of dollars, where if we do it once, it's a one-hit thing that at least we know where we are and we can work the deficit down from there. or what about the research and development tax credit? everybody here, virtually everybody in this body knows how important that is to our high-tech world, our high-tech industry, which in some ways is not competitive because we always foul it up almost every year. it's now been absent for a year now because -- even though the democrats have had abject control of this body, could have done anything they wanted to do to preserve it and protect it, they haven't done a doggone thing. now, as somebody who works on

intellectual property issues day in, day out and has done so for 34 years in the senate and has done so in a bipartisan way -- and i don't think anybody on the other side can say i haven't worked with them in these areas. senator leahy and i worked together very closely on these issues. why aren't we making it possible for our high-tech world to create jobs by being more competitive, by giving them what we all basically agree they should have and doing it permanently, the research and development tax credit? these are just a few of the things that i think we ought to be able to get together on in a bipartisan way and really accomplish something here at the end of this year. now, if i was the president -- now, i'm not, but if i was, and it's nice to speculate every swuns in awhile, he is -- every once in awhile, especially here on the floor of the senate when we see all these problems -- if i was the president, i would be banging on the democrats and republicans to resolve these

problems that i've been talking about here today. think about it. the president would have all of december, he would have all of january virtually, since we don't really get geared up and going very much in february, he would have most of february, and he might even have most of march almost all to himself and to his -- and to his organization right down there in the white house. i can't understand for the life of me why the president isn't weighing in to get this problem solved now -- these problems solved now that i've been talking about. it's to his advantage. but instead, we're going to play these phony political games right up till christmas day. now, we've done that before and i can live with that. look, i can work on christmas day as far as i'm concerned. but it's ridiculous what's going on around here. it's ridiculous. and here we have three or four days now that hardly anything's going to be done where we could resolve these problems. now, we've got this group together. it's a good group.

we have good representatives from the house, from the senate and, of course, the treasury secretary, the director of o.m.b. i have high hopes that they'll wise up and come to a conclusion that this is what we have to do and do it as quickly as we can in the best interest of our country, so there is some -- and let's use this word not just advisedly but every day -- some certainty for our business community to create jobs with. and our bankers to start loaning again, and for others to get involved in the economy. this is to the advantage of the president. i don't understand why he isn't beating on the guys on this other side and over there in the house to wake up and do what's right and let's get this over with and get this country back on track again. republicans are dedicated to try and resolve this problem but we're not going to get pushed around on this.

and, frankly, we want to solve it with our friends on the other side. i just hope we can. mr. president, i don't see any other senators here, so i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, on behalf of the leader, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during tatted's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. mr. president, as we come to the end of the year and the end of the session, i want to talk about what is really happening here for the american people,

for small businesses, what's happening here in terms of the senate and what's really at stake as we come to the end of the year for american families, folks that are struggling every day, people trying to keep in the middle class, get into the middle class, small businesses trying to keep their heads above water, as well as our manufacturerses and so on. and it is exstriewmly concerning to me that -- and it is extremely concerning to me that colleagues on the other side of the aisle -- they've written a letter to the leader today -- they are willing to risk everything in order to get a bonus round of tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. they are literally willing to stop everything, risk everything in the economy in order to get an extra tax cut. and i'm not talking about -- and the reason i say "extra" or

"bonus" is because we have in front of us an agreemen agreeme% of the public who earn less than $250,000 a year for their family should be continuing to receive tax cuts permanently, and everyone who has income up to $250,000, whether they are their real income is $1 billion or not, they get a tax cut up to $250,000 on their income. so the question that we will be answering this month is whether or not millionaires and billionaires get a bonus, get an extra tax cut on top of that. and here's what's at risk. that the republicans are willing to put at risk. the same people, mr. president -- you heard it as well as i did throughout the year talking about the deficit, how we needed to stop the exploding deficit,

we need to bring deficits down. in order to get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billionaires, they are willing to risk the federal deficit, balloon it another $700 billion. not pay for it, not paid for. now, they're saying we at ought to pay for unemployment benefits for somebody who lost their job in this economy through no fault of their own. but $750 billion -- but $700 billion, the average tax cut, $100,000 for somebody earning $1 million. $100,000 is more than the average person in michigan makes, mr. president. my guess is, west virginia is the same. so in order to keep $100,000 a year going in a bonus tax cut for people earning $1 million, they're willing to risk the federal deficit exploding.

they are willing to risk jobs, because, you know, we have seen a policy in the last ten years of basically giving tax cuts to folks at the top and everybody else waiting for them to stricko trickle down. and my folks are tired. colleagues on the other side of the aisle think we just haven't waited long enough for this to trickle down. but the reality is that, that policy that they want to continue, that explodes deficits, gaffes bonus tax cut for people at the top, has not created jobs. in fact, my question is after ten years of tax cuts for the wealthy, where are the gorks mr. president? my state has lost over 800,000 jobs during the period of this bonus tax cut policy for millionaires and billionaires. if it had worked, if we had created 800,000 jobs in michigan

rather than losing 800,000 jobs, i would be on the floor of the united states senate fighting to continue this policy. this is not partisanship. this is about common sense and what works. we have had a policy in place that has not worked. so why would we continue it? they say, well, we have to continue this because we're in a recession. mr. president, this was part of the reason we're in a recession. in terms of the fact that it didn't invest in the right way. now, if we want to take those dollars and put it back in clean energy manufacturing and focusing on making things in america, we want to put this into things that we know are going to actually focus on jobs, good-paying, middle-class gorks i'm all for t it. $700 billion of a policy that of has not worked for ten years makes no sense. so that's my question. where are the jobs? show me the jobs.

i'll be the first person on the floor voting "yes" to continue. but they are willing to risk the deficit. they are willing to risk jobs. they are willing now, mr. president -- they are willing -- in a letter that they have now sent to the leader today -- to risk tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses. by saying, you know what, we're not going to do anything else until we continue the tax cuts for everybody in this country, including millionaires and billionaires. they're not willing to work with us to make sure middle-class families, who are the folks that need to have money back in their pocket, and small businesses who need to have money back in their pocket get permanent help, and then we can work on the rest of it where people disagree. now, we're going to hear a lot about small business, and i find it quite surprising when colleagues have filibustered in

the last two years 16 different tax cuts for small businesses. a small business jobs bill to put -- make capital available for small businesses so they can keep their head above water, refinance, grow their business. personally, mr. president, i'm not going to be lectured by people who voted against p 16 different tax cuts in the last two years for small businesses. and who are now using small businesses to hide behind. you know, the folks that are hiding behind small businesses that they're holding up are the ones that they're fighting for. we're happy on our side. we take a back seat to no one on fighting for small business. i want to thank our chair, mary landrieu, who was on the floor over and over and over again for from the small business committee and a wonderful group of colleagues who fought and fought and fought to make sure that we put forward a bill, took way too long because of foot

dragging, everybody trying to throw sand in the gears, but we finally got it passed, a tremendous a effort to increase capital and add eight tax cuts in the small business jobs bill, which only two republican colleagues had the courage to step across the aisle and join us. we are grateful that they were willing to do that. but the senate republican caucus is willing to put all of that in jeopardy, hold hostage tax cuts needed by people, working people, middle-class families, small businesses, if they can't get a bonus tax cut for millionaires and billion yaimplets they're also willing frankly to jeopardize social security and exphair. we've a debt commission coming up with proposals that are very concerning, tough decisions about social security and medicare going forward, because we have a deficit, and they're

saying, well, wait a minute. first you got to increase the deficit by $700 billion. in order to give millionaires and billionaires a tax cut. no, we do care. we don't care if that impacts social security and medicare and tough decisions that have to be made, seniors who live on social security and medicare. you know, we don't care. the most important thirng -- we have heard this over and over and over again -- the most important thing, we don't care if it is paid for. doesn't matter if anything else gets done, doesn't matter about national security, we're not going to tank the start treaty, we don't care about our relationship with russia, we don't care about national security issues. we want a tax cut for our friends. millionaires, billionaires, adding $700 billion to the debt. so they're willing to risk it all, stop the tax cuts for middle-class families and small businesses in order to get that

bonus tax cut. and finally, and most insulting to me of all, mr. president, is they can stand and say we won't support helping people who are out of work in an economy that is way beyond normal, an economy where there are five people looking for every one job. and in my state, you're talking about folks who have never been out of work before in their life and they are mortified and they're doing everything they can to hold it together. they are trying desperately to keep their head above water, while their house is under water. may not have been able to have the kids continue in college this year. folks that are just trying to make it and they're saying you know what? we didn't create this economy, we didn't cause the crisis on wall street, we didn't create all the rest of this. we have done nothing but play by

the rules their whole lives and now they are in a situation where they can't find a job. you know, i talk to a lot of folks 50, 55 years old, 60 years old. worked all their lives. we're coming up to the holidays now. all they want is for us to do what we have always done as a country in the past with high unemployment, and that is allow them to receive unemployment benefits to get them through a tough time temporarily while we should be focusing on jobs because people want to work. people don't want to get $200 or $300 in unemployment benefits. they want to work. they want the dignity of work. americans know how to work, they want to work, and they are looking to us to create a climate, working with businesses so they can get a job. but here we have a situation where the republicans in the

house turned down unemployment benefits yesterday. senator jack reed came to the floor to ask unanimous consent to -- and we will be asking again unanimous consent to be able to extend unemployment benefits. the regular system. not -- i also believe we need to add additionally for people who run out of their benefits, who have been dubbed the 99ers. we need to be helping them as well. this is just to start, this is to keep the regular system going, so somebody who loses their job today is treated as fairly as the person who lost their job on monday. right now, the whole system is up in the air. and what we hear on the other side is oh, my goodness sakes, we can't possibly extend unemployment benefits without -- quote -- "paying for it, cutting someplace else, paying for it.

it's for a year about $50 billion. that's a lot of money. i'm not saying it's not. but how about, how about we help pay for it by not giving a bonus tax cut to millionaires in this country? $700 billion. $700 billion, and colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not believe that should be paid for. somehow, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires have different rules than a little bit of help for somebody who lost their job through no fault of their own and is trying to keep their family together and a roof over their head in these times. that's a heck of a choice in terms of values, mr. president. i'm amazed that what we have here as we come to the end of the year is a situation where colleagues on the other side of

the aisle have indicated that they are going to continue to block everything. it's not new. filibusters aren't new. throwing sand in the gears is not new. it's been done every day on this floor for the last two years. but now they are saying that in addition to extending -- obviously, getting the budget done, we all agree with that, we all agree with that, but if we don't extend the tax cuts for everybody, meaning millionaires and billionaires, then they're going to filibuster everything else, including unemployment benefits. so let me just say in closing that we are in a situation where right now today we could give 97% of the public certainty going forward about tax cuts, small businesses, middle-class families by simply joining together on a proposal to

protect and extend permanently middle-class tax cuts, and those for the vast majority of small businesses, and we certainly can come together in a way that does even more for small business, and our side is happy to do that. the side that has voted 16 times for tax cuts for small businesses. but we believe that it is economically and morally wrong to allow an average $100,000 in additional tax cuts, tax relief for a millionaire next year while somebody who has worked all their lives and lost their jobs through no fault of their own can't keep a roof over their head this year. it's not right, mr. president. it's just absolutely not right. and so -- and by the way, let me

just reiterate one more time because we're going to hear a lot about small businesses. this is not about small business. this is not about small business. we are willing to come together as we always have for small businesses. this is about a few people, and not even everyone in that category is asking, by the way, for a tax cut. we have got a lot of folks that understand we have the biggest deficit in the history of the country who are blessed through their own hard work or through their circumstances to be very well off who are saying i want to do my part, i'm willing to do my part, ask me to do my part. i will. they're not even asking for this. they are not asking to hurt people who are out of work in order for them to get another tax cut. but unfortunately on the other side of the aisle, our colleagues are willing to risk everything, the deficit, jobs, social security, medicare, tax

cuts for the middle class and small businesses and help for people who are out of work in order to give a bonus tax cut for a privileged few people. and that's not what we're about. that is not what we are about or what we're going to fight for. mr. president, i'd like at this point because it is absolutely critical that we understand what families are going through right now in this holiday season that someone who is losing their job today should be treated as fairly in our country as someone who lost their job two days ago. i would ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from s. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions and that the senate then proceed to its

immediate consideration, that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate time in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, reserving the right to object, and i will object. i understand that senator brown of massachusetts objected to this request yesterday, and he offered a fully offset alternative. therefore, on his behalf, i do object and ask consent that his proposal be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: objection is heard. is there objection to the -- ms. stabenow: mr. president, i will not object -- i would reserve the right to object. i will not. but i just simply want to say this is a sad day for -- for millions of families in this country, and a message that we should all be embarrassed to

have sent, that millionaires and billionaires should be the ones that are being fought for on the floor of the united states senate and millions of people who are out of work don't count, and i regret that. the presiding officer: without objection, the materials will be printed within the record. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, welcome to the senate. it is a pleasure to have you joining this -- this body, and i will tell you that ever since the health care law has been passed, i come to the floor every week as a physician, as someone who has practiced medicine for a quarter of a century, taking care of families across the state of wyoming to give a doctor's second opinion

about the health care law, and i bring that each week, bringing a different story of someone who has not been helped by the health care law, someone who has been hurt by the health care law, an identifiable victim of the health care law, and i heard it certainly at home over thanksgiving from doctors and nurses as well as from patients because i believe that this is a law that is going to be bad for patients, bad for our providers, the nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients, as well as bad for taxpayers. and then it's been no surprise to me, mr. president, that americans want and expect repeal of this health care law. the most recent rasmussen poll showed that american support repeal of obamacare by 21%. 58% are for repeal and 37% are not. independent voters support

repeal by 24 percentage points, 59% to 35%. so i continue to come to the floor to bring out to our colleagues the concerns that i have about the health care law and the concerns that i hear at home from -- from patients and from providers and from taxpayers. and what i wanted to mention to you today, mr. president, is that recently the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, sent a letter to the members of the medical school class of 2014. these would be the incoming medical students, the first-year medical students in your state and from mine, and in the letter that goes to about 15,000 or 16,000 first-year medical students, she talks about this -- the health care law and talks about how she believes it will be good for them as medical students and good for their patients. but one of the -- one of the things that she -- that she

talks about in the letter, interestingly enough, is that she said many of you and your siblings are undoubtedly, she says, under the age of 26, as many first-year medical students are under the age of 26. and she then raises the issue and says you will now be able to stay on your family's insurance policies until you are 26. as you know, mr. president, this was one of the selling points behind this health care law, that young people would be able to stay on their insurance policies until the age of 26, and the secretary points that out to all incoming medical students. so it, i think, came as quite a surprise, mr. president -- it did to me and i think it should have to these medical students and others to read a story november 20 in "the wall street journal" that talks about -- the headline is "union drops health coverage for workers' children." the idea was that children were

supposed to be covered under this health care law. and -- and i will just start by reading, mr. president, "one of the largest union-administered health insurance funds in new york, one of the largest union-administered health insurance funds in new york is dropping, dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials say." this is the -- the service employees international union, and they are dropping coverage for about 6,000 children. the president has said no children will be dropped. the secretary has said no children will be dropped, and yet a union, which has encouraged through its lobbying efforts support of the health care law, is now dropping 6,000 children. and why are they doing it? well, it says that the health care reform legislation requires plans t